/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10233765]

Where do we fall on Jordan Peterson?

Honesty only please.

[Anonymous No.10233777]

I quite like him even though I fucking hate the memeing
He's not an expert on everything he touches on but he strikes me as a man with an extremely consistent and well-thought-out view of the world and I really admire that

[Anonymous No.10233790]

Great guy, amazing clarity of thought, has ideas that are practical and applicable to almost everyone.

[Anonymous No.10233801]

>>10233777
To be honest he restricts himself so well to his area of competence that he may very well be an expert on everything he talks about. He seems to have a very conservative estimate of his knowledge and is careful about the opinions he shares in public.

[Anonymous No.10233807]

>>10233765
Probably the best candidate for a modern day philosopher who will join the ranks of Socrates, Descartes, Aquinas, etc. after he dies and will be studied in schools for years to come.

[Anonymous No.10233813]

>>10233765
He has his place. He makes some interesting points in regards to personality traits and political beliefs. His faults lie where he strays too far from psychology. He is not well enough versed in pomo or marxist philosophy to deal with them substantially (or at the least he makes a straw-man of them, wittingly or not).

[Anonymous No.10233815]

>>10233807
Come on now, this must be a false flag
Peterson is more like a Joseph Campbell figure, but in a good way. He's popularizing important ideas from dense texts that most people won't ever read by explaining and combining them in an engaging and relateable way

[Anonymous No.10233817]

>>10233807
I like the guy, but damn you guys are like a cult. Jung is infinitely more influential, (and will be read far longer than) Peterson. Hell, Peterson would be the first to admit this. He's obviously an incredibly intelligent and talented individual, but to say he's the next Socrates makes my eyes roll in my skull.

[Anonymous No.10233822]

>>10233813
>He is not well enough versed in pomo or marxist philosophy to deal with them substantially
I think his positions on those things are his most important and relevant.

[Anonymous No.10233823]

>>10233813
>>10233822
He's starting to get a lot better about that, not fully, but it's getting there. He's starting to understand the difference between postmodernism and post-structuralism

[Anonymous No.10233827]

>>10233801
He's a clinical psychologist isn't he? Wouldn't that make his expertise the human brain? The possibilities regarding one's ability to analyze, synthesize, and apply information on a social, literary, or political level makes him a remarkably versatile mind.

[Anonymous No.10233829]

>>10233807
Clearly you aren't well read enough to even make such a statement. I like Peterson a lot, but there's very little originality in him. He's a good speaker and he's well read, that's mostly it.

[Anonymous No.10233832]

His heart is in a good place. I like him. Might not agree with everything he says, but I like him.

[Anonymous No.10233839]

>>10233823
Seems you're under the impression there's more of a difference than there really is. Which is unsurprising. Postmodernism banks on making people think it's complicated when it's as simple as many initially perceive it is.

[Anonymous No.10233843]

>>10233839

[Anonymous No.10233846]

>>10233822
I can't stand how he refuses to deal with Marx. He only focuses on Solzhenitsyn which allows him to basically skip applying his theory to China, Cambodia, ect. Instead, the only version of Communism he will deal with is Stalinism. Why won't he actually critique what Marx wrote?

[Anonymous No.10233847]

>>10233765
Peterson is a smart guy. He was smart enough to notice a radical change in ideas over the last few years and to capitalize on it. Now people can't shut up about him, his talks are fully booked, and his books sales are better off.

He's the kind of guy you know is puttin on an act and you suspect he's making it up as he goes along, but you tell yourself he isn't because you need someone halfway decent and sane looking whose videos you can listen to in the background while you lurk 4chan.

[Anonymous No.10233862]

>>10233847
This but unironically
>>10233839
Read something more than mere second hand accounts on the comments section of YouTube and Facebook.

[Anonymous No.10233871]

>>10233829
I'd say that these days, and for the people he's reaching, that's enough.

[Anonymous No.10233883]

>>10233846
The way I see his argument is that in a sense it doesn’t matter. If you argue with marxism in its language you’re playing the wrong game. Instead he pushes an empirical argument showing that wherever Marxist ideology takes root societies degenerate and people suffer. He also seems more concerned with debunking the façade of postmodernism SJW’s attack him with rather than the underlying marxism although he does acknowledge it several times. Perhaps his best critique or marxism itself is that it only talks about society and power structures in a vacum without really integrating the consequences of hierarchies of competence and how that might explain the social structure Marx criticized.

[Anonymous No.10233888]

A run-of-the-mill academic with nothing particularly interesting to say. Evidently an excellent self-help guru though.

[Anonymous No.10233893]

>>10233883
>Perhaps his best critique or marxism itself is that it only talks about society and power structures in a vacum without really integrating the consequences of hierarchies of competence and how that might explain the social structure Marx criticized.

Elaborate

[Anonymous No.10233903]

>>10233883
>Instead he pushes an empirical argument showing that wherever Marxist ideology takes root societies degenerate and people suffer
No, he doesn't. He exclusively deals with Solzhenitsyn; he doesn't engage with the empirical side of the issue at all. The fact he often tends to conflate pomo and marxism should worry you, as even he has stated in the past that a marxist cannot be a postmodernist. And Marx does not "only focus on power structures", he presented an entire ontology (i.e. dialectical materialism).

[Anonymous No.10233919]

he's right about most things and he's a serious dude who cares about people, which is more than you can say about just about any other public intellectual

[Anonymous No.10233926]

>>10233903
Shhh let him think it over by himself. Let him elaborate.

[Anonymous No.10233927]

>>10233919
>my internet dad told me to stop wasting time
>what an amazingly brilliant public intellectual

[Anonymous No.10233946]

>>10233927

Not that anon but all I see is one frogman fighting with another frogman.

[Anonymous No.10233947]

Poorly read and a fool. The fact that I can hear people compare him to Mencken is pathetic

[Anonymous No.10233961]

>>10233765
Seems like a cult. Just look at the answers in this thread.

[Anonymous No.10233963]

>>10233927
you're a dog barking at itself in the mirror

[Anonymous No.10233967]

>>10233961
tankies get out

[Anonymous No.10233968]

>>10233765
Seems like a guy who triggers ideologues and anti-intellectuals. Just look at the answers in this thread.

[Anonymous No.10233970]

>>10233963
>Using an analogy to say that he's projecting

C L E A N. Y O U R. R O O M.

[Anonymous No.10233972]

>>10233801
>he restricts himself so well to his area of competence that he may very well be an expert on everything he talks about
I don't think this is true. Most of his iq videos (for example the one where he stratifies jobs based on iq) seems fairly speculated.

>>10233961
Nice try at wit, but cult thinking is as a rule positive without qualifications. These answers tend to be positive w/ qualification. Try harder anon.

>>10233947
>Everyone who isn't Mencken is a fool
Baby's first idol

[Anonymous No.10233974]

>>10233968
>Anti-Intellectuals
Oh yeah, because the dude who uses a broad artistic and philosophical movement as a boogieman for some imagined decline without ever providing a satisfactory definition for that movement is such an intellectual. The man can't even coherently define postmodernism, let alone critique it.

[Anonymous No.10233975]

>>10233963
Woah. Is that one of your surrogate father's edgy quips? I don't think you're using it correctly. Time to rewatch the "How to Clean Your Room" for 20th time.

[Anonymous No.10233982]

>>10233972
I don't even like Mencken, but he at least could keep up with the cutting edge of philosophy that was around at his time. Peterson can't even speak competently on Girard or Debord, two people who he vaguely alludes to in his critiques of "postmodernism".

[Anonymous No.10234023]

A clever man capitalizing on retards with brilliant theatrics.

[Anonymous No.10234024]

>>10233974
>without ever providing a satisfactory definition for that movement
I believe that everyone sufficiently educated who acts in good faith can understand which phenomenon he's describing. """Postmodern neo-marxism""" is a poor label but we don't have a better one yet.

>>10233982
"""Postmodernist""" writing is mostly gibberish and out of touch. The critique should be directed at real societal trends.

[Anonymous No.10234034]

>>10233967
>catchphrases
Yeah definitely a cult.

[Anonymous No.10234037]

JBP exudes that Alberta affect

and ya'll ain't seen nothin yet

[Anonymous No.10234038]

Doesn't he have a postmodernist attitude towards religion and calls it meta truth?

[Anonymous No.10234039]

>>10234024
>"""Postmodern neo-marxism""" is a poor label but we don't have a better one yet.
Then invent one.
>"""Postmodernist""" writing is mostly gibberish and out of touch
So have you ever actually sat down and read The Society of Spectacle, Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World, The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception, or literally anything by Michel Foucault? Because none of these things are gibberish. It seems like you're doing what most people who side with Peterson do, where you don't read the actual texts and you base your impressions of 60 years of philosophical, artistic, literary, and ideological thought on how some D-tier professors talk.

[Anonymous No.10234041]

>>10234024
The thing is, what you believe doesn't count for shit right now. Peterson always attakcs a vague notion, rarely addresses individuals and speaks at length about them for critique, those who are akin to feeling a sense of alienation and detachment easily anchor it on his narrative of Pomo being the boogeyman who's responsible for their condition.

Post Modernist writing is far more than gibberish if you're accustomed to the background of what lead to it, I.e. familiarity with the subject.

[Anonymous No.10234050]

>>10234024
>if you ask me to define the very things I'm talking about, you're either uneducated or have malice aforethought

[Anonymous No.10234055]

>>10234039
I for one think postmodernism might be a very sophisticated concept but at the end it leads to bullshit results and even though objective truth might not exist, the concept of an objective reality as working hypothesis is much more productive and beneficial.

That's the reason why I don't need to read Foucault, because whatever postmodernism is, it doesn't work. Like communism.

[Anonymous No.10234060]

>>10234055
>I can critique authors without having read them because I can see what their ideology produces when filtered through 60 years of undergrads fucking it up!
>I don't need to gain other perspectives on reality, I can just trust what I see in the "real world" without reading any actual philosophy!
I bet you think anything vaguely left-of-center that involves reshaping the economy away from capitalism can be reduced down to Communism. You people make me legitimately ashamed to be right-wing.

[Anonymous No.10234061]

>>10234055
>even though objective truth might not exist
You're already postmodern and you don't even realize it.
>I don't need to read this because I say it doesn't work
You might as well get your pomo card and start clocking in every week. You can't even see it can you?

[Anonymous No.10234080]

>>10234061
If anything I'm post-postmodern. And it doesn't work because it desolves the foundations of society just in order to what? Create a new equilibrium like communism where everybody starves to death. Postmodernism doesn't work because societies need to develop organically. You can't just astroturf a new paradigm from the top without creating chaos.

>>10234060
No, but I think radical lefties are delusional and their shit ain't working.

[Anonymous No.10234082]

>>10234055
What kind of bullshit are we talking about?
The kind where you critique something without ever having any idea about it whatsoever?
Or the Kind where you strawmen, make false equivalencies and refer to different Philosophical movements as postmodernism without being aware of it?
Or is it both, like you are doing right now?

[Anonymous No.10234083]

>>10234055
>i don't know what postmodernism is
>i know it doesn't work

[Anonymous No.10234085]

>>10234080
Which AstroTurf did post modernism invent and do you even know what autopoesis of social structures even is? Do you even Luhmann, you pseudointellectual?

[Anonymous No.10234086]

>>10234080
What do you define as radical? Which of their texts have you read? What are your formal critiques of their reasoning? You can critique society, sure, but the second you bring postmodernism into it, you're attacking a coherent group of ideologies which deserve a carefully constructed critique, not a slapdash assault.

>I'm a postpostmodernist!
Then what your alternate theory? Or would you literally say "Hey, postmodernism is intellectually airtight, but we should ignore it because it has bad consequences"?

tl;dr read what you're insulting. You can't base an intellectual critique of an academic movement on the actions of people who barely have any contact with that academic movement.

[Anonymous No.10234088]

Never read him and nothing I've seen on /lit/ makes me want to.

[Anonymous No.10234089]

he's pretty good.

trolls ungrateful college kids. takes nietzsche seriously instead of edgy "lol power games hurr". knows how to rhetoric and touches on a lot of complicated and important things. he is in a roundabout way a bit hegelian with his metaphysics, which is kind of funny all things considered. monadic dualism is the strangest thing, though. he's mentioned the taoteching once or twice and eliade was kind of like that as well.

jung is my favorite existential philosopher

pomo is counterculture drivel

marxism is murder

sort yourselves out

and someone mail him some epistemology books.

[Anonymous No.10234090]

>>10234085
Genderstudies, SJW-culture.

>>10234086
I can and I do. There's no objective reality according to postmodernism and that's why I'm correct when I say it's just bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10234094]

>>10234090
>There's no objective reality according to postmodernism

[Anonymous No.10234097]

>>10234094
Well everything is a social construct including your definition of postmodernism.

[Anonymous No.10234101]

>>10234090
So your beef is with gender studies and SJW culture rather than post modernism?

Lol why didn't you say so in the first place you cuck.

Also, citation needed on which author you've read from pomo trend that claims there to be no noumena to exist, and their work in which they say so.

[Anonymous No.10234104]

>>10234097
>I can use "social construct" like Stirner memers use the term spook and it'll be a real tangible critique of postmodernism! Take that Michel Foucault!

You know, you still haven't answered what "postmodern" texts you've actually sat down and read between your insane and inane ramblings about SJWs and how Feminist semiotics are evil or something

[Anonymous No.10234105]

>>10234101
For someone who doesn't believe in objective reality it's kinda absurd to ask fo citations.

[Anonymous No.10234111]

>>10234104
And you didn't refute anything I said, maybe by citing something postmodernism that states an objective reality to exist. Maybe in terms of biology for example. Isn't SJW culture marxism an outgrowth of postmodernism?

[Anonymous No.10234116]

>>10234111
>Isn't SJW culture marxism
Please read what the actual "Cultural Marxists" wrote. You might find that Horkheimer and Adorno's thesis that contemporary society devalues culture and turns it into a commodity to be bought and sold, rather than an experience to be lived applies to your understanding of politics.

"Postmodernism" doesn't typically talk about noumena. It talks about societal processes of understanding, and there's multiple ways of addressing that. Rene Girard, for instance, produces a coherent theory of how social interaction works with Mimesis, which he purported to be objective. Semiotics, a distinctly postmodern field, identifies the ways in which words assume meanings which affect reality, and you cannot have Semiotics without the presumption that there's a reality which can be effected. But you know, I doubt you're actually interested in learning, because

>Maybe in terms of biology for example.
You actually think that biology falls under the purview of philosophy, which it assuredly does not.

[Anonymous No.10234118]

>>10234111
>say something completely retarded and intrinsically inconsistent
>get questioned on your competence and asked to simply define the topic you're talking about
>HAHA BUT YOU DIDN'T REFUTE MY INCOHERENT BUZZWORD SALAD
Do you really not see the absurdity or you just can't stop being pointlessly contrarian all the time?

[Anonymous No.10234123]

>>10234105
>Assuming

>>10234111
>Isnt sjw culture an offshoot of Pomo

According to Peterson it is postmodernism instead of being an offshoot .

Also that's not how it works, you claimed that pomo says there isn't an Objective reality, what was your source for saying that? Because I've not read anyone who made that claim in the pomo trend, and if you have where did you find that?

[Anonymous No.10234125]

>>10233827
he's a clown, and you're a clown if you fell for this snake oil salesman. and you barely know what being a clinical psychologist is.
> inb4 not an argument
i'll tell you wha'ts not an argument, for instance peterson's neuronic scapegoating about muh "frankfurt school" without ever going into details about a single work of a representative of that school-thought, perhaps because he has never read one and therefore he can go only as far as to very general accusations on how their philosophy is to blame for eroding the very fabric of our society. and btw i'm not a champion of the frankfurt school at all, i actually disagree with most of their conclusions and i'm as right-wing as it gets. also, what's the greatest peterson's accomplishment? shitting on retards because of their pronoun crusades? well, kudos, how brave, what an intellectual. does he really deserve $60k per month for doing something that every brainlet on pol and lit could do?

[Anonymous No.10234127]

>>10234116
Does postmodernism advocate to change the meaning of words in order to change society?

And don't tell me biology isn't the purview of the humanities. Tell it to the people who claim genders can be made up and there's like 200 of those.

[Anonymous No.10234128]

>>10233846
protip: he never read marx. he never read even a single work of the frankfurt school and he barely knows the difference between mao and stalin . he's just larping

[Anonymous No.10234132]

>>10234128
All you need to know about Marx you can read in The Gulag Archipelago.

[Anonymous No.10234135]

>>10233765
Fulfills the daddy figure so many boys look for when they think their real father is a beta.

[Anonymous No.10234136]

>>10234127
Maybe if you sat down and listened to those people, instead of jumping to conclusions, you'd know that what they mean by that is that there are two categories of sex. There is what organs you have, and the societal expression of asserting which organs you have. The latter of those two concepts is gender, and is not a biological topic, but a sociological one, and is therefore within the purview of philosophy.

>Does postmodernism advocate to change the meaning of words in order to change society?
No, that is not what """postmodernism""" advocates. That is what we all do, every day. It's what you're doing right now. By defining postmodernism as an intellectual boogeyman that you can blame for the decline of a civilization, you've changed the meaning of the word postmodernism to change society. That's not called postmodernism, that's called basic fucking rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.10234141]

>>10234132
i'm sure that jordan peterson agrees with your stance. now go back getting milked out of your shekels on his patreon, you gotta fund his war against the new pronouns m8

[Anonymous No.10234142]

>>10234125
Listen, I don't have to read 120 Days of Sodom to know why fucking kids is bad. Maybe the Marquis de Sade has some kickass points about why pedophilia is supposed to be great according to him, but why bother.

[Anonymous No.10234147]

>>10234136
>>10234141
Give me the tl;dr on postmodernism then, what it is and what it wants to do. I want to hear your thoughts intstead of you pointing to other people's work like a parrot.

[Anonymous No.10234148]

>>10234142
Postmodernism isn't about fucking kids.

[Anonymous No.10234149]

>>10234147
Idk man you already watch Peterson who does the tl;Dr for you. Maybe it's time to move past tl;Dr and actually read them books instead?

[Anonymous No.10234150]

>>10234148
Your post isn't about understanding analogies.

[Anonymous No.10234151]

>>10234149
Not an argument. You're just a shill who probably didn't read the books himself.

[Anonymous No.10234153]

>>10234147
>>10234151
>X is bad and stupid and I hate it even though I don't know what it is
>well anon maybe you should actually acquaint yourself with X before passing judgement
>no, what am I a retard. kek, numale commie leftard btfo once again, fellow pedes!

[Anonymous No.10234156]

>>10234153
>words don't have meaning until I have sand in my vagina

[Anonymous No.10234158]

>>10234147
Postmodernism is a wide-ranging series of academic doctrines, ideologies, and critical frames that emerged following the end of WWII and the emergence of the atomic era. Generally, it describes a wide and vast variety of literary, poetic, and philosophical movements. French Existentialism, Structuralism, Poststructuralism, Neoscholasticism, and more can be counted among the philosophical texts. Literary figures that wrote during the period range from Anthony Burgess to Sylvia Plath, and from Joseph Brodsky to Michel Houellebecq. It also saw the fragmentation of philosophy into the Continental and Analytic philosophy as established doctrinal approaches, as well as the emergence of Feminist and Semiotic lenses into academic studies. It can be argued that postmodernism is still going on, although some have stated that it ended with 9/11. No one's really sure.

tl;dr it's not a fucking boogeyman you can blame the decline of western civilization on

[Anonymous No.10234159]

>>10233765
>OY VEY, THE GULAGS WERE AN ATROCITY AGAINST HUMANITY GOYIM! READ SOLDIERSCHNITZEL!
>Oh, Dostoevsky was the greatest HUMAN ever, but you won't hear me mention how he was in a forced labour camp under the Tsar - because it detracts from my reactionary Soviet-bashing, which actually comes from folklore and Nazi lies.

[Anonymous No.10234166]

>>10234158
Just because cancer is not the same as asbestos I still can blame asbestos for causing cancer. The emergence of feminist and semiotic lenses is definitely cancerous.

[Anonymous No.10234169]

>>10234159
So the soviets only killed 10 million in their concentration camps instead of 30 million. Wow, I love communism now!

[Anonymous No.10234173]

>>10234166
How much of Umberto Eco, Roland Barthes, or Mikhail Bakhtin have you actually read?

[Anonymous No.10234176]

>>10234173
How much asbestos do I have to eat before I get feminitis? I can see how everybody who has read into postmodernism turns into an agent of cultural deconstruction.

[Anonymous No.10234178]

>>10234159
>The total number of convicts in the Nerchinsk silver-mining district was approximately 952. There were 188 at Alexandrofski Zavod, 150 at Algachi, 70 at Pokrofski. The Kadainski and Smirnovo mines had 184. The Savenski and Gorni Zerentuiefski mines had 360.[1]

Truly, comparable to hundreds of thousands in each gulag. 960 convicts vs millions of civilians. The Tsar sure was a bastard. Hah! Praise lenin! bash the fash!

[Anonymous No.10234179]

>>10234166
I'm still waiting for you to tell me where you read a pomo Philosopher claiming there isnt an Objective reality.

And I'm going to ask you why do you think Equality between the sexes on legal, and social grounds is a bad thing? Equality remember, not equity, we're going to go with the definition of feminism that is accepted and given by the dictionary and not those darned post modernists.

And do tell what you understand by semoitic lenses in your use of the word

[Anonymous No.10234181]

>>10234166
>just because the Cretaceous period is not the Extinction of the Dinosaurs, I can still blame the Cretaceous period for the Extinction of the Dinosaurs

[Anonymous No.10234185]

>>10234176
That's not how knowledge works. This isn't fucking Lovecraft you twit, you're not going to be driven mad by an evil book. You're not going to suddenly lose your convictions because you start being able to competently argue your opponent's point of view. Christ.

[Anonymous No.10234189]

>>10234179
Because men and women aren't the same, obviously. Maybe we're all worth equally, but there are biological and psychological difference that demand different legal frameworks.

Also, I didn't Pomo claimed there wasn't an objective reality. I claimed it was premise for postmodernism.

[Anonymous No.10234192]

>>10234185
It's exactly like lovecraft. At one point you're just an innocent traveller investigating some remote costal town, 100 pages later you've grown an innsmouth look and try to dive into the depths of communism to meat comrade Stalin. Only you additionally wear problem glasses now and call everybody who disagrees a cis white shitlord.

[Anonymous No.10234198]

>>10234192
You can't actually believe this. Man, you have to be trolling.

[Anonymous No.10234201]

>>10234192
You mean the way some lost young adults turn to certain Youtube videos for help with procrastination and organizing their personal life and then end up completely adopting and worshiping a random person's views on topics they don't understand in the slightest?

[Anonymous No.10234202]

>>10234189
Different biology doesn't equate to different legal systems if there is only one governing body and with it a body of law in the same sovereign system, an example of the contrary would be how Islam treats Women as a secondary and less pivotal sex, something that Peterson is very much against.

Also yes, you did claim that A/c to post modernism there is no objective reality, that may have been misinterpreted as a claim rather than a premise hy me, but you still have to cite where you got the impression from and from who >>10234090


Also semoitic lenses? Elaborate.

[Anonymous No.10234205]

>>10234192
Sadly, you've already been taken in by a greater cosmic horror. You can't escape the shitpost cycle now.

[Anonymous No.10234207]

he's a cunt

[Anonymous No.10234208]

>>10234189
>Also, I didn't Pomo claimed there wasn't an objective reality. I claimed it was premise for postmodernism.
The absolute state of /lit/

[Anonymous No.10234209]

>>10234198
It really is a mind virus, my dude.

[Anonymous No.10234211]

>>10234147
>pointing like a parrot
what

[Anonymous No.10234213]

>>10234209
Why do haircuts always trigger you aspies?

[Anonymous No.10234214]

>>10234209
>before reading: making roastie photosessions
>after reading: standing up and acting on your beliefs

[Anonymous No.10234216]

>>10234209
I've read post-modernist literature you moron. Anyone with a philosophy degree has. Guess what? I can now actually engage with people about post-modernism and critique from an objective stand point. You know, with sources and interpretation; not sophistry and appeals to ignorance.

[Anonymous No.10234218]

A far more skilled swindler than Anita ever was

>>10234055
>That's the reason why I don't need to read Foucault, because whatever postmodernism is
>I know what it is despite not reading it
Goddamnit, this is what happens when /lit/ LARPs too hard as the board where no one reads

[Anonymous No.10234228]

>>10234213
i dislike peterson and his "bash le frankfurt school" business-model, but that whore is an absolute brainlet, don't even try to defend her

[Anonymous No.10234229]

I remember when /lit/ thought Trump getting elected was LITERALLY impossible and how the board tried to make an argument from authority, saying shit like HAVE YOU EVEN READ XYZ LOL!?? Then boom, btfo.

It's literally the same with postmodernism. A lot of fancy words and all, but at the end it's just verbal mastrubation and even a retard like me sees the truth when you don't. Because I'm not misguided by a faulty ideology that rewrites common sense to the point you don't know the difference between up and down anymore.

You've fallen to the mind virus. Cleanse yourself. You might be intelligent but you use your potential to justify wrong ideas.

[Anonymous No.10234236]

>>10234228
>whore
opinion discarded, back to r/incels

[Anonymous No.10234237]

>>10234229
>use your potential to justify wrong ideas
>still can't articulate what those wrong ideas are
Honestly, out of everything, you make the best argument to be a postmodernist. Because if I'm a postmodernist, then at least then I would know I'm not on the side of a brainlet of this magnitude

[Anonymous No.10234240]

>>10234229
>i don't understand what the thread is about, but let's derail it into poltrash
Go back to your teenage subreddit of a board, please.

[Anonymous No.10234241]

>>10234229
> those hairy legs

absolutely disgusting, we should follow kim jong-un's example and outlaw this kind of degeneracy

[Anonymous No.10234242]

>>10234240
Say what you will about /pol/ but /pol/ is more often right than /lit/.

[Anonymous No.10234245]

>>10234229
>even a retard like me

At least you admit it.

Common sense, by the way, tells me that I should listen to people who actually provide evidence as to what so & so thinker said before they try to criticize it, rather than taking someone's assertions at face value.

[Anonymous No.10234246]

>>10234229
>Some politician using appropriated, degraded Pat Buchanan rhetoric while dogwhistling to the far-right is the same thing as discrediting sixty years of academic study
>"Any philosophy I don't like is just verbal masturbation!"
I'm on the right wing but c'mon man, at least pretend you can be respectable.

[Anonymous No.10234248]

>>10234236
> if you call a girl a whore t-then you must be a virgin
t. someone who has never partaken in a locker room talk with literal chads who slay more staceys and roasties that you'll do in your lifetime and all your following reincarnations

[Anonymous No.10234251]

>>10234248
I've fucked over 20 girls in the course of three years, I lost my virginity at 16. Wbu? I feel like you've never been to a locker room before without being that kid who quickly dresses so no one can see your tiny cock.

[Anonymous No.10234252]

>>10234245
You confuse talking more nicely to being right. I'm sure someone can make beautiful calculations proving the earth is flat, but it doesn't change it being round. All I need to know about postmodernism are it's results.

[Anonymous No.10234256]

>>10234252
>this post

[Anonymous No.10234257]

>>10234251
i've seen chads who shit-talk girls all the time, slut-shame them on social media and IRL and call them whores, cunts and degrade their identity to mere sexual objects fucking as many girls as you did in less than a month. and yes, i'm a cuck and i love witnessing their overzealous display of alphamaleness, but it still proves my point. checkmate

[Anonymous No.10234258]

>>10234256
What does it say about you and your ideology if someone less intelligent is able to make better predictions?

[Anonymous No.10234259]

>>10234257
>implying girls aren't programmed to be sexual objects at a young age
yikes

[Anonymous No.10234260]

>>10234252
cool. so all we need to know about nazism are its results - meaning that. comunism aside, it killed more white people than any other ideology-

[Anonymous No.10234262]

>>10234259
i agree and that was my point. don't jump into a discussion if you're not following it since the get-go

[Anonymous No.10234269]

>>10234252
You're right, providing evidence of what is actually being said, before attempting criticism, is 'talking more nicely' and not what scientists actually did to refute flat earth theories.

[Anonymous No.10234272]

>>10234260
So russians aren't white according to you or something, because last time I checked communism killed plenty. Besides that I would argue communism killed more nazis than nazism as well. But it's faulty premise in the first place, to assume someone is a nazi because said person doesn't like communists either. Especially if both ideologies are manifestations of radical leftism, even though one highlights racial solidarity more than the other.

[Anonymous No.10234273]

>>10234258
What predicitions, brainlet? Why are you engaging in critque of something you're completely unfamiliar with?

[Anonymous No.10234274]

>>10234269
Serious talk: Do you think postmodernism has had a positive influence on western society? If yes, how so?

[Anonymous No.10234275]

>>10234269
flat earth theories have never been rebuked on a theoretical basis, they've only been empirically rejected - although we don't have yet satellite images sophisticated enough to definitely prove that they're entirely untrue, so as unlikely as it sounds, they could still be right-

[Anonymous No.10234279]

>>10234275
>it's a retard that shits up /sci/ with pseudoscience trash discovered /lit/ episode
There is no escape from brainlets.

[Anonymous No.10234280]

>>10234274
>He isn't a Girardian
>He doesn't accept Christ's role as internalizing the Scapegoat and thereby creating "Western" morality
>He doesn't see the cycle of mimesis inherent in society

[Anonymous No.10234283]

>>10234272
russians are not white, but i've just conceded that communism killed more white people than nazism, you literal brainlet

[Anonymous No.10234284]

>>10234258
I'm not a postmodernist. I dislike postmodernism in general. I'd take a postmodernist over a posturing psuede any day.

Legitimate criticism: "Foucault's thought proposes no positive solutions to the social and political issues that he critiques in his work, leading to a system which provides no suitable alternative."

Criticism of an uneducated brainlet: "Postmodernism is bad because it leads to bad stuff. I can't define what I mean, and I haven't read any of the literature, but I already know it sucks cause someone else told me."

[Anonymous No.10234285]

>>10234274
Depends on the thinker. There is no way to add together an overall 'postmodern influence'.

[Anonymous No.10234287]

>>10233777
Triple 7 speaks the truth, at least for me. I like the man and his take on things even if I dislike the overly mediatic hype, but that comes as part of the anti-socio-tranny package I suppose.

I do find he's a bit too liberal, a bit too centrist, pusillanimous, in a word, but perhaps that's just me. Then again, 99% of academia has gone PC full-retard, not to mention anyone in the public eye thanks to SJW retardism.

[Anonymous No.10234288]

>>10234285
that's the kind of relativism that is eroding the fabric of our intellectual world

[Anonymous No.10234289]

>>10233846
>applying his theory to China, Cambodia,
because those places were a barrel of proletarian laughs, weren't they?

[Anonymous No.10234293]

>>10234288
>Philosophers should be judged on their work not on the labels others give them
>Erosion of muh intellectual world

[Anonymous No.10234295]

>>10234289
if you think that chinese weren't happy under mao's rule you're falling for imperialist propaganda

[Anonymous No.10234297]

>>10234288
>Admitting that a vast period of time that contains religious, anti-religious, feminist, positivist, anti-positivist, structuralist, and anti-structuralist thinkers under one label can't be defined in simple terms
>YOU'RE ERODING THE FABRIC OF OUR INTELLECTUAL WORLD
Quick, how do you reconcile the fact that Girard, Barthes, Derrida, and Carl Sagan are all considered to be postmodern without using that definition?

[Anonymous No.10234298]

>>10234293
didn't postmodernist say that everything has be analyzed within a social context and never in absolute terms?

[Anonymous No.10234299]

>>10234288
If I was saying something relativist, I would have said that no evaluation of any thinker/writer can be made at all.

[Anonymous No.10234300]

>>10234288
>generalizing two dozen different schools of thought permeating several spheres to a meaningless buzzword
>intellectual

[Anonymous No.10234302]

>>10234299
saying that every evaluation is dependent on another thinker is still relativism tho

[Anonymous No.10234303]

>>10234289
My point was that he should critique Mao and Pol Pot as well as Stalin if he wants to look like a legitimate critic of Communism. He can't do that with Solzhenitsyn because he didn't live in China or Cambodia, therefore JBP ignores them writ large.

[Anonymous No.10234307]

>>10234300
postmodernism is an extremely well-defined school of thought, educate yourself

[Anonymous No.10234311]

>>10234288
Your inability to read is eroding the fabric of our literature board

[Anonymous No.10234313]

>>10234302
>every evaluation is dependent on another thinker

wut?

[Anonymous No.10234314]

>>10234307
protip: postmodernism doesn't mean what you think it means. derrida was actually a classicist and a champion of western civilization and if you had read any of his works you'd know that

[Anonymous No.10234317]

>>10234302
He said it depends on which concrete pomo thinker you are talking about, you hopeless contrarian cretin.

[Anonymous No.10234318]

>>10234295
Top kek mate, I've lived in China for years and speak Chinese.

Which is more than you'll ever accomplish.

Try reading the rather unChinese sounding Jean Pasqualini's "Prisoner of Mao" for a laugh then get back to us. Peterson doesn't even need to go there.

[Anonymous No.10234319]

>>10234307
>postmodernism is an extremely well-defined school of thought
Please do define it.

[Anonymous No.10234322]

>>10234318
>I've lived in China for years and speak Chinese.
So you are a non-native speaking for the natives?

[Anonymous No.10234324]

>>10234318
you mean the same pasqualini who has received funds from the CIA to endorse their anti-maoist narrative? most of the old chinese miss mao

[Anonymous No.10234327]

>>10234285
I don't get it. Isn't the hallmark of postmodernism it's criticism of modernism, as in blaming it's characteristics to cause the tendencies that are deemed undesirable by postmodern thinkers?

[Anonymous No.10234328]

>>10234322
yeah I'm an awful appropriator of national sentiment, aren't I?

>Most of the old Chinese miss Mao,
and you know this how? That's not what I heard, but then what would I know.

[Anonymous No.10234329]

>>10234298
>postmodernist
Just. Stop.
Read one of them, pick your choice, then form an argument against them based on what they actually wrote. If you really want to argue against postmodernism as a whole, you have a lot of post modernist literature to read before you can start. If you want to continue being a literal pseudointellectual then continue throwing around the label "postmodernism" while simultaneously admitting you have no idea what that term means. I'm sure you'll get far in life with intellectual rigor like that.

[Anonymous No.10234331]

>>10234303
>if he wants to look like a legitimate critic of Communism
what does one look like?

[Anonymous No.10234338]

>>10234319
postmodernism is a culture-jamming movement that aimed to hijack the logic of the capital and how it was\is permeating every social dynamics with the use of relativism and skepticism whose main purpose is to erode any perception of objective reality. it's endgame is restore the socratic questioning and maieutic as a paradigm of the intellectual discourse in order to push for a more egalitarian western society

[Anonymous No.10234339]

>>10234327
Not all postmodernists, and not all modernists. Hell, what the fuck is modernism? There was no coherent ideology to modernism. You can't say that Joyce, Auden, Eliot, Dostoevsky, Pound, Lewis, Popper, Nietzsche, Marinetti, Husserl, and Proust had remotely similar aims, ideas, or concepts. But they're all Modernists, right?

[Anonymous No.10234341]

>>10234338
You mean the Frankfurt School.

[Anonymous No.10234342]

>>10234329
why all postmodernist enthusiasts get so butthurt when their philosophical proclivities are called out?

[Anonymous No.10234346]

>>10234341
the frankfurt school is a small subset of the postmodernist project and as such it embraced its endgame although it pursued them with slightly different tactics. it's a bit like a difference between hamas and hezbollah

[Anonymous No.10234348]

>>10234341
Please I'm begging you read Horkheimer and Adorno just actually know what you're criticizing

>>10234338
>Postmodernism aims to destroy Western society by returning to Western society's oldest philosophical influence!
do you realize how stupid you sound

[Anonymous No.10234349]

>>10234342
>why do people get butthurt when they are criticized through assertions without evidence or cohesive argumentation

[Anonymous No.10234352]

>>10234338
>ask for a positive definition
>gives a poltaridan hurdur description
woah, completely btfo.

[Anonymous No.10234355]

>>10234348
you cannot back to whatever golden time you have a fondness for, you have to accept that it's the current year and numquam quiescere, move forward

[Anonymous No.10234356]

>>10234342
I'm not a postmodernist by any stretch of the imagination.

[Anonymous No.10234359]

>>10234284
>legitimate criticism towards Foucault
>"It's not a metanarrative and doesn't hinge on teleology!"

[Anonymous No.10234360]

>>10234352
how can i give you a positive definition for something that i dislike and that is causing so much harm to my people? i gave you an accurate portray of the movement, which is more than fair

[Anonymous No.10234363]

What's the goal of postmodernism?

[Anonymous No.10234364]

>>10234355
Wow, how postmodern of you.

[Anonymous No.10234366]

[Anonymous No.10234371]

>>10234363
The goal of Rene Girard is to expose the secret of mimetic desire that exists at the core of religion and society as a whole through his reading and interpretation of Biblical texts and other sources.

[Anonymous No.10234373]

>>10234364
> taking responsibility for your own actions and your modern-day reality
> postmodern
pick one
postmodernism revolves around the abdication of the concept of responsibility

[Anonymous No.10234375]

>>10234360
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/positive

Why are you even in this discussion, retard?

[Anonymous No.10234378]

>>10234371
In english, please.

[Anonymous No.10234382]

>>10234373
LOL where do you find this shit?

[Anonymous No.10234387]

>>10234375
do you realize that twisting around the meaning of the word "positive" is the kind of postmodernist mental gymnastic that piss people off?
>inb4 language is a social construct

[Anonymous No.10234388]

>>10234366
That's an pretty elaborate way to say he refused to participate in the self image of some tranny who wanted to be called a she despite having a penis.

[Anonymous No.10234390]

>>10234328
>I'm an awful appropriator of national sentiment, aren't I?
Unironically yes

[Anonymous No.10234391]

>>10234363
deconstructing whiteness and heterosexuality

[Anonymous No.10234392]

>it's another thread where mentally challenged /pol/ teenagers use "postmodernism" as a more sophisticated alternative to "degenerate"

[Anonymous No.10234395]

>>10234360
If you care so much about stuff causing harm to your people, you should care more about corporate malfeasance which probably has a greater negative effect on masses of people, rather than a bunch of random thinkers and philosophers with completely differing doctrines and beliefs.

[Anonymous No.10234404]

>>10234387
>on a literature board discussing philosophy
>doesn't understand what positive/negative definitions are
>thinks positive must mean "good"
>blames his ignorance on others' ""mental gymnastics""
Please fuck off and don't reproduce, triple nigger.

[Anonymous No.10234405]

>>10234395
corporations create jobs, unlike cultural marxists

[Anonymous No.10234408]

>>10234387
You don't get it. Language needs to be deconstructed to reveal underlying assumption that have been coded to hide their purpose of the systemic oppression of non-normative modes of thinking.

It doesn't really matter what you actually mean, it's what you say.

[Anonymous No.10234411]

>>10234404
to be fair, the budern of proof is on you if you were referring to the more technical definition of "positive". if you want to defy social conventions, at least learn how to be rigorous from the hard sciences (but i'm well aware that postmodernists hate science because it's full of white males and they see it a corollary the imperialist mindset, so no surprise there)

[Anonymous No.10234416]

>>10234408
at the end of the day, there's not such a thing as a language

[Anonymous No.10234418]

>>10234411
This is the fruit of Logical Positivism.

[Anonymous No.10234420]

>>10234405
At longer working hours for lesser pay and stability since the 1970s.

Sadly you'll probably be too stupid to know that you're feeding the beast that fucks you.

[Anonymous No.10234421]

>>10234418
>inb4 logical positivism was a byproduct of 19th century imperialist western society and the patriarchy

[Anonymous No.10234425]

>>10234411
>burden of proof
Proof of what? This isn't /pol/, spouting random nonsense doesn't pass for a coherent thought. Take your clumsy bait-larping somewhere else, oligophrenic autist.

[Anonymous No.10234426]

>>10234420
i work as a quantitative trader and i really cannot complain about my paycheck, if you have enough talent you can climb the foodchan and pave your way to success. for everyone else, there's postmodernism

[Anonymous No.10234430]

>>10234425
proof of what you actually meant? isn't that what postmodernists want? your choice of words have to match your intentions

[Anonymous No.10234433]

>>10234426
Juggling $1000 in memecoins from your pissbottle cave isn't a quant job, my lad.

[Anonymous No.10234434]

>>10234433
buy LINK

[Anonymous No.10234435]

>>10234426
>if you have enough talent you can climb the foodchan and pave your way to success

Damn, it's one of those guys.

Too bad your fate is to be consumed by the sands of history without leaving any significant mark on human civilization.

[Anonymous No.10234437]

>>10234411
>more technical definition of "positive"
>defy social conventions
>rigorous from the hard sciences
>postmodernists hate science
>because it's full of white males
everything about this post

[Anonymous No.10234438]

>>10234425
I'm impressed by your display of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.10234439]

>>10234127
>Does postmodernism advocate to change the meaning of words in order to change society?
That's Cultural Marxism.
Read Antonio Gramsci or Marcuse. Peterson often conflates neo-Marxist ideas like these with postmodernism

[Anonymous No.10234443]

>>10234430
>prove you said what you actually said
Contrarianism taking to next level.

[Anonymous No.10234451]

>>10234435
coping much? this is how unsuccessful people talk: "ah, the world doesn't get me, but posterity shall reevaluate my footprint on the flow of human history". what's your greatest accomplishment? dikying your hair? i witnessed the rise of cryptocurrency, a groundbreaking moment in the history of our civilization, and i'm now wealthy (yes, it's too late to jump into the train), i can look down upon most of you in this thread

[Anonymous No.10234452]

I'm trying to be perfectly honest here. I'm not sure anything of value would be lost if postmodernism was suddenly gone. What am I supposed to get out of it? Nobody seems to able to quantify what it exactly does, how it changes society, and so on. It's like you're some salesman who wants so sell me something, but then refuses to explain what it is and why I would need it.

[Anonymous No.10234455]

>>10234426
flows of capital, flows of intensities, of affects, libidinal flows, genetic material flows, flows of people, information flows, flows of pictures, news flows, time flows, letting the text flow freely, everything flows

[Anonymous No.10234458]

>>10234229
This. Similar thing happened to all the Stalinists/Maoists of post-War Europe: a lot of fancy thinking and reasoning, yet total disconnect from reality. Do not trust intellectuals

[Anonymous No.10234461]

I feel like postmodernism makes life more complicated than it needs to be. I appreciate the back and forth, but it seems like starving to death while having an epistemological discussion about sausages instead of just eating one.

[Anonymous No.10234471]

>>10234451
Well I'm already in correspondence with the Herman Melville of our time, and through that connection I've learnt the value of art and eternity above so many petty concerns, and the will to chase that above anything else. I could hardly care less about your achievements. Never forget:

I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

[Anonymous No.10234480]

>>10234471
moby dick was shit, i wouldn't be proud about being in correspondence with the next melville. perhaps you'll have more luck in your next life

[Anonymous No.10234486]

>>10234480
Only meant that in the analogous sense of what his reputation was like when he was alive, versus post-humously, but all great writers are different in style. And if you really think that Moby Dick was shit then that's your own lack of vision.

[Anonymous No.10234494]

>>10234486
but the market agreed with me. in a capitalist society the value of a good writer is based upon how much he sells, everything else is just plain coping.

[Anonymous No.10234495]

>>10234455
you talk like a faggot
is this what postmoderns speak like? If so then I want out

[Anonymous No.10234496]

>>10234390
you need to go back to plebbit.

[Anonymous No.10234502]

>>10234494
>market agreed with me

We're talking about Moby Dick right? The book that is read in countless schools for English class?

[Anonymous No.10234504]

>>10234502
not when melville was alive though. and yes, moby dick is overrated

[Anonymous No.10234506]

>>10234504
>claims that in capitalist society the value of a writer is based upon how much he sells
>claims book is overrated even though it sells

[Anonymous No.10234510]

>>10234506
because the most accurate measure is how much it sells when its author is still alive and he's the only marketer of his own work. ofc when he dies and professional marketing firms take the reins of his intellectual property even a shitty book can become a national best-seller

[Anonymous No.10234516]

>>10234510
>makes evaluation about 'shittiness' of book, proving that he uses a calculus other than sales

Did you just contradict yourself in a single sentence?

[Anonymous No.10234517]

There's literally no evidence of the gulags existing. Shouldn't there be football fields of the BAJILLION bodies?

[Anonymous No.10234523]

>>10234516
no, i just said that my evaluation is based upon how much a book sells within a very precide timeframe - namely when its author is still alive-

[Anonymous No.10234530]

>>10234523
Lel good one bro. Thanks for being a walking meme. It was enjoyable talking to you.

[Anonymous No.10234532]

>>10234359
not sure if sarcastic but that seems like a pretty legitimate criticism of the general aim of most of the post-structuralists.

[Anonymous No.10234539]

>>10234530
have a good day anon-kun ^-^

[Anonymous No.10234545]

Has anyone in this thread actually read Maps of Meaning all the way through?

[Anonymous No.10234618]

Agenda pushing, profit driven scumbag. He is the academic version of the youtube "sceptic community", peddling alarmist misinformation to 'anti-sjw free speech activist' teenagers in return for patreon subscriptions charged to their parents' credit cards.
No matter your view on trans rights, his take on C-16 was simply objectively wrong, and I don't think it's too cynical to suggest that it was a calculated, directed mischaracterisation designed to fit perfectly in the echo chamber of his audience demographic.

[Anonymous No.10234645]

Pic is from Maps of Meaning.

If you look at this and think it represents anything other than the hallucinations of a deranged moron then there's no helping you

[Anonymous No.10234649]

>>10234645
>he didnt see this and immediately achieve enlightenment
Brainlet

[Anonymous No.10234652]

>>10234649
I haven't yet hatched from the precosmogonic egg

[Anonymous No.10234654]

>>10234645
>mfw I only needed the right map to find the meaning of life

[Anonymous No.10234656]

>>10234618

Have you ever listened to a single word directly from Peterson himself?

[Anonymous No.10234685]

>>10234645
>*does a matheme*
>"I hate Lacan and those bloody postmodernists!"

[Anonymous No.10234698]

>>10234496
>give anecdotal evidence which is already shit tier
>turns out to be from an outsider
either present an argument or fuck off

[Anonymous No.10234713]

>>10234656
yeah he once said ancient people 'saw' the DNA helix in their dreams, and that explains the Caduceus

he's a lunatic

[Anonymous No.10234748]

Psychological quantification, material reduction of man is such a lowly and pitiful thing. Peterson's moralising and rhetoric comes to nothing in the ephemeral and dry method he chases

[Anonymous No.10234785]

>>10234713
That's not necessarily a crazy observation. I'm sure he didn't mean that they literally saw DNA and made the caduceus a symbol of medicine because they somehow prophetically learned that they were made of DNA. Ancient Greeks and Egyptians had knowledge of the fundamentals of physics through observation of natural phenomena, hence the golden ratio, Pythagorean geometry, etc. The double helix is just two opposing transverse spirals, plenty of living things follow golden ratio geometry in some way and spirals are a conjugation of same

[Anonymous No.10234819]

>>10234785
>That's not necessarily a crazy observation
It is in every respect.
>I'm sure he didn't mean
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb5cBkbQpGY&t=6330

[Anonymous No.10234828]

>>10234039
>SoTS
>postmodern

[Anonymous No.10234837]

>>10234189
So your gripe with postmodernism is it doesn't let us have sharia law

lmao

[Anonymous No.10234855]

>>10233883
But Marxism isn't a program or a system of government. It's a mode of analysis using the lens of class dynamics. Peterson has never engaged Marxism, he has simply run-through the usual criticisms of the USSR under Stain and conflated Marx with 20th postmodern thinkers who are, at best, tangentially related to the Marxist tradition.

This should give us extreme pause not only because it exhibits a lack of of understanding of Marxism, but because it shows Peterson doesn't really know what he's talking about at all.

[Anonymous No.10234873]

>>10234517
Gulags absolutely existed, they just didn't have a high body count outside periods during the war when they simply stopped feeding and providing for many prisoners

Stalin executed an absolutely insane amount of people but these were through mass arrests and mock trials, just usually not within the Gulag structure

[Anonymous No.10234892]

>>10234855
>my special brand of marxism ha never been tried before

>>10234837
No?

[Anonymous No.10234918]

>>10234892
>conflating marxism and communism
>parroting formulaic buzzword responses
Why are you shitting up a good board, reddit?

[Anonymous No.10234920]

>>10234892
My man, Marxism isn't something you try. It's not a set of policies. Marxism is a system of analysis that helps us understand capitalism, and history more generally, through the perspective of class.

Trying to discuss Marxism simply by listing the failures or abuses of Marxist states is as reductive and dishonest as discussing liberalism through describing how European democracies committed colonial abuses in the 19th century, without mentioning what liberalism actually means.

[Anonymous No.10234938]

>>10234892
Tell me what a legal framework based around sexual difference should look like. Because that exists right now in certain Muslim countries, and I'm unsure how your ideas would be any different.

[Anonymous No.10234939]

>>10234920
Isn't what marxism does with capitalism?

>>10234918
Why do you touch yourself at night?

[Anonymous No.10234946]

>>10234855
Bollocks. You keep on rabbitting about this, but hey: eat the fucking pudding and get the proof yourself: it doesn't work in practice, ergo, the theory is shit. Some things are so blatantly elf-evident for those who aren't afflicted with whatever spectrum-bending condition it is you have, and who have a decent grasp of history and politics and everything that flows in and out of that.

Now bugger off, shitforbrains.

[Anonymous No.10234968]

>>10234946
>yer dum

[Anonymous No.10234976]

>>10234946
making a post of pure ideology is not an argument

[Anonymous No.10234978]

>>10234946

>Some things are so blatantly elf-evident for those who aren't afflicted with whatever spectrum-bending condition it is you have

This.

[Anonymous No.10234983]

>>10234938
Pregnant women get more workplace protection and later maybe easier access to part time job contracts in order to take care of their kids. Men might be conscripted when women are not and if they volunteer they are prohibited from combat roles to not impact combat effectivness. Stuff like that. Maybe quotas on male teachers to counter female dominance in education to balance sensibilites in terms of student needs, considering women can't empathise with the male perspective. Also laws maybe against servere cases of golddigging in context of divorce laws.

[Anonymous No.10234992]

The thing that Jordan Peterson is most right about is that the Left is fueled predominately by resentment; either resentment at being born, resentment for their own personal inadequacy or a resentment at authority figures.

If only the Left loved the poor as much as they resent the rich, they would've been taken more seriously.

[Anonymous No.10234997]

>>10234976
You're damn right it's not an argument. The only person retarded enough to even bother is yourself. 2/10 trolling, bud. Unless you're one of those plonkers who think communism was never given a fair chance, whatever that might mean. Have fun with your speculation-induced dementia.

[Anonymous No.10235003]

>>10234992
I think you've hit the nail on the head there, most leftists, at least those vocal, marching and "activating" SJW types not only seem to be completely uninterested in either working or helping their fellow man, they also seem to suffer from a bewildering array of newfangled mental and emotional illnesses.

Bring back the gulags just for them.

[Anonymous No.10235016]

>>10234992
>>10234992
If this is what he genuinely said then he is a bigger pseud than I thought

[Anonymous No.10235020]

>>10235003
I get triggered when they brag about their iphones on one hand and then complain about the influence of big corporations, or worse, some plumber or whatever who barely gets by.

[Anonymous No.10235048]

>>10234939
Not really, because capitalism isn't an ideology. It's an existing state of affairs that a hell of a lot of people are very invested in protecting. Marxists analyze how classes interact within capitalism and tend to deal with ideologies (like liberalism or nationalism) by examining how these ideologies protect and are formed by capitalistic relations.

This might surprise you, but many Marxists (ranging from democratic socialists like Richard Wolff to left communists like Bordiga and Dauve to weird psychoanalytic Marxists like Zizek) spend much of their time analyzing the Soviet Union through this same framework. Everybody except the most extreme tankies will tell you that the USSR itself was a class society, with its own class struggle and ideological superstructure.

So even while so much of the postwar Marxist tradition would agree with parts of Peterson's analysis of the ways the USSR was bad, he makes no effort to actually engage their arguments and just talks about Gulags instead.

>>10234946
Marxism is not a form of government. The Soviet and Chinese ideologues believed their isolated fortress-state was, rather than the remnants of a revolution that bad already failed. Marx never advocated for their program and in fact wrote of the dangers of a government trying to force communism from above.

[Anonymous No.10235057]

>>10235016
He was way more speculative than I am being. Probably because he doesn't want to trigger 68'ers who are still alive.

[Anonymous No.10235058]

>>10233974
>The man can't even coherently define postmodernism
Point to someone who can then.

[Anonymous No.10235064]

>>10233765
I don't even know the guy, but his fanbase seems profoundly retarded

[Anonymous No.10235076]

OP you are vinishko tyan

[Anonymous No.10235082]

>>10235057
>an actual psychologist making shit up about his enemies instead of doing proper emperical research
Don't dig the hole even further.

>implying he actually knows about the 68
Bitch please if he or you can remember 68ers and yet not remember Harlan County, Second Red Scare or even the IWW then that makes his perception of the Left to be highly selective.

[Anonymous No.10235100]

>>10234946
Nah Marxism works great. It's our best toolset for understanding class society!

[Anonymous No.10235103]

>>10235100
So Marxism works. Whatever.
It's just a pity you and your ilk won't.

[Anonymous No.10235110]

>>10235100
Personally I would assume evolutionary psychology might work better, or something like the homo reciprocans.

[Anonymous No.10235129]

>>10233822
Not really, his focus on pomo/marxism is pretty minor. If you think it's his most important thing, then you're most likely either an SJW obsessed alt righter who only cares about him because he fights le cultural marxism, or a loony tankie/SJW butthurt because he shits on your cult. He mostly focuses on fellating Jung and analyzing stories.

[Anonymous No.10235154]

>>10235058
Literally fucking wikipedia
>While encompassing a broad range of ideas, postmodernism is typically defined by an attitude ofskepticism,ironyor rejection towardgrand narratives,ideologiesand various tenets ofuniversalism, including objective notions ofreason,human nature,social progress,moral universalism,absolute truth, andobjective reality.

Basically postmodernism seeks to critique existing and more objective ways of knowing, like Marxism or traditional liberalism or scientism.

However, usually when people like Peterson talk about postmodernism they're talking about post-structural philosophers like Foucault and Derrida. These guys anymore postmodern attitudes toward structural analysis of our society. Instead of using social class or biology as their vantage point, these guys sought to mire effectively study the past and the present through analysis of all social structures and the underlying factors that created them. For instance, Foucault famously argued that homosexuality as an identity didn't exist until the 19th century. Victorian sexual mores were so strict that men who fucked men turned that part of their life into their entire identity. In earlier centuries with looser sexual attitudes, if a guy wanted to fuck a dude he could just fuck a dude. It was just expected of him to marry a woman and have children later.

Post-structuralism had a pretty big influence on liberal thought, and has been pushing Marxism and traditional liberalism out of academia since the 70s. A lot of liberals like post structuralism because it allows them to critique various oppressive systems without suggesting that capitalism and the state are necessarily culpable.

[Anonymous No.10235164]

>>10235154
>rejection of objectiv reason, absolute truth, and objective reality

Into the trash.

[Anonymous No.10235196]

>>10233777
yeah, I didn't want to like him because it seemed like people on here were shilling for him, but after listening to him talk russian lit.. he's a pretty cool dude.

[Anonymous No.10235205]

>>10235110
Evopsych is interesting and important, but from my experiences it's pretty shit at describing the minutia of human social organization.

[Anonymous No.10235208]

>>10235196
>talk russian lit
>"""Dosto is good"""
>shilling Solzh 24/7
Yeah, blowing everyone's mind really.

[Anonymous No.10235218]

>>10235205
So is marxism honestly.

[Anonymous No.10235247]

>>10233903
>No, he doesn't. He exclusively deals with Solzhenitsyn; he doesn't engage with the empirical side of the issue at all. The fact he often tends to conflate pomo and marxism should worry you, as even he has stated in the past that a marxist cannot be a postmodernist. And Marx does not "only focus on power structures", he presented an entire ontology (i.e. dialectical materialism).

I don't think you've watched him very closely.

He doesn't conflate, he presents pomo and neo-marxism as two separate ideas that quite frequently have similar people involved.

I don't think he engages on an empirical level like the other poster suggested, that would require a lot of statistical and historical work.

He does make an abstract argument against marxism in the sense that it doesn't work when you account for everybody's dark side, as does Eric Weinstein.

[Anonymous No.10235252]

>>10233927
amazing 4chan intellectual simplifies 150hrs of lectures into retarded comment and expects us to care.

what a pussy.

[Anonymous No.10235254]

>>10235218
No I disagree, Marxist framework is really good at explaining class society from the broadest level (international politics) to something as small as the relationship between a janitor and his employer.

There's a lot of really interesting Marxist analysis coming out these days. I'd recommend you give it a look.

http://chuangcn.org
https://endnotes.org.uk
https://www.jacobinmag.com

[Anonymous No.10235261]

>>10234039
>>"""Postmodernist""" writing is mostly gibberish and out of touch
>>Because none of these things are gibberish

If it were true these things were not gibberish you would have an idea of which to present that proves it so.

You don't. You just want us to read your favourite book list. If Micheal Focault's work is so important, why don't you do the blessing of at least what Jordan does and condense reading into a coherent point?

Or just whinge some more, bitch.

[Anonymous No.10235268]

>>10234083

I've got nothing to add to the conversation except my contempt for others. How about an idea that expands the point rather than being a waste of pixels on the screen?

[Anonymous No.10235270]

>>10235252
>undereducated retard gets asshurt when someone criticizes his father-he-never-had idol

[Anonymous No.10235272]

>>10235154
But Peterson uses the Wiki definition. He talks about their rejection of grand narratives and hypersubjective outlook all the damn time. I thought that's why people say he's got it wrong?

[Anonymous No.10235290]

>>10235270
has no point, just has a go. keep goin with the strawman, that you're so obviously above.

i honestly think you get better discussion on reddit and that's sad.

[Anonymous No.10235302]

>>10235290
>can't greentext
>barely intelligible english
>better discussion on reddit
Do return there, thirdie trash.

[Anonymous No.10235310]

>>10235302

saying more things that don't matter. still has no point.

what else is new on this shit hole?

[Anonymous No.10235329]

>>10235310
>gets assblasted
>calls names
>hurr durr you don't reply to me seriously
Go back to /r/jordanpeterson and stay there. Nobody cares how much you love the great thinker who taught millions of teenage retards that doing chores is important. Now fuck off.

[Anonymous No.10235343]

>>10233974
>as a boogieman for some imagined decline without ever providing a satisfactory definition for that movement

You do realize he is talking about multiple implementations of post modernism at once?

You do realize he has already specific ideas that he attributes to post modernism and rather than arguing labels, you could maybe isolate out the ideas and debate them?

If you're entire argument is semantic, go circle jerk somewhere else.

You're complete lack of critical thinking and using basic 4chan bullying as an attempt to run an argument, rather than a point, leads me to believe you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.10235348]

>>10235329
>Go back to /r/jordanpeterson and stay there. Nobody cares how much you love the great thinker who taught millions of teenage retards that doing chores is important. Now fuck off.

Lol. At least downvote me first, bitch.

Oh wait you can't. And you have to put up with me, as much as I have to put up with you.

Freedom of speech's a bitch right?

Fuck off with your non-arguments. Whatever you think you know is worthless cause you can't express it worth shit.

I'll fuck ur mum.

[Anonymous No.10235359]

>tfw actual reddit comes into thread and you realize 13 year old poltards aren't that bad

[Anonymous No.10235360]

>>10235359
tfw an emoticon is an argument and valid arguments are measured in memes

[Anonymous No.10235367]

>>10235343
You managed to fit in so much stupid in one post it could probably be a doctoral thesis of some psychology professor.

[Anonymous No.10235370]

>>10235359
>implying they aren't one and the same since 2016

[Anonymous No.10235371]

>>10235367
glad you have a point to back that up. i'll take the win if you're willing to bitch out.

[Anonymous No.10235374]

>>10235370
>den of intellectual superiority just attacks rather than risking being wrong

[Anonymous No.10235380]

>>10235371
>say something phenomenally retarded and display total ignorance on subject
>get mocked
>HAHA YOU DIDNT TAKE MY MENTAL DIARRHEA SERIOUSLY I WIN
We have a whole separate board for such wickedly intellectual people as you.

[Anonymous No.10235382]

>>10235380
glad you don't have to take responsibility for your actions. couldn't expect any less from a 4chan poster.

imagine this, an internet device where you can post words to a forum and actually have debate?

isn't that amazing?

nah i'll just fuck ur mum instead.

[Anonymous No.10235389]

>>10235380
>>get mocked
oh am i sposed to care what you think? does 4chan users just run their brain on peer pressure?

cause if so, that's easy to win.

[Anonymous No.10235393]

>>10235382

[Anonymous No.10235395]

>>10235343
Give sources of his argumentation for where he isolated specific ideas
of post modernism while discussing them, give source for him arguing without having a broad brush-stroke for postmodernism.

Give a source where he spends time on the works of Pomo thinkers and elaborates them and critiques them afterwards.

Inb4 gender pronouns, transgender bathrooms, communism doesn't work, etc.

[Anonymous No.10235396]

>>10235393
get a point? it would help

[Anonymous No.10235399]

>>10235389
If you don't care what others think - why are you even participating in discussion, retard?

[Anonymous No.10235404]

>>10235395
>Give sources of his argumentation for where he isolated specific ideas
>of post modernism while discussing them, give source for him arguing without having a broad brush-stroke for postmodernism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf2nqmQIfxc

he's done others too.

>Give a source where he spends time on the works of Pomo thinkers and elaborates them and critiques them afterwards.

No, he's here to say what he has to say, not what you have to say. If you got something to say about his interpretation of post modernism in specific, then fucking say it you pussy.

>Inb4 gender pronouns, transgender bathrooms, communism doesn't work, etc.

Everyday a strawman. Can't risk being wrong now can we?

[Anonymous No.10235406]

>>10235399
cause maybe there'll be interesting discussion on the ideas. maybe i'll learn something new?

thanks for admitting that's all you care about, retard.

[Anonymous No.10235407]

>actual 14 year old redditor in thread

[Anonymous No.10235414]

>>10235407
everyday a meme. you're closer to reddit than i am pal :D you should open an account, you might get a bunch of karma over there.

[Anonymous No.10235437]

>>10235404
That didn't address what I asked for. I've watched it already and its the same old "hurr pomo bad cuz *insert strawman*" .Since you seem to be in a bubble, and instead of reading insist on YouTube videos , here's one for you.

https://youtu.be/OSuEccEYvaE

Btw the Vidya you gave was a broad brush-stroke. And people have criticised him for it in this thread. Here if you missed it.
>>10234116

>>10234101
>>10234123
>>10234136
>>10234158
>>10235261

[Anonymous No.10235457]

>>10235343
>multiple implementations of post modernism
Post-modernism isn't some common theoretico-ideological basis that allows for multiple implementations. It's merely a term to denote more or less everything that came after modernism. Not even the usage of deconstructive methods is unversal to everything that falls under pomo cathegory. It's simply not a term you should use for anything but historical reference, certainly not when discussing particular ideas which wildly vary between different pomo schools of thought.
>he has already specific ideas that he attributes to post modernism and rather than arguing labels
That's the whole point of the thread, you braindead plebbit monkey. He's literally using pomo as a collective buzzword for all that he deems wrong in current society. In rare cases he actually tries to engage with it he completely conflates it altogether with post-structuralism and goes on to ramble about Foucault.
>could maybe isolate out the ideas
>You're complete lack of critical thinking
Your complete failure to understand the premise and subject of discussion at hand suggests you should fuck off back to your pseud hugbox.

[Anonymous No.10235459]

He's a dumb sophist whomst I resent for ruining this board.

[Anonymous No.10235465]

>>10235459
holy shit I just realised that he is LITERALLY a sophist lmao, does that mean I'm Socrates?

[Anonymous No.10235472]

>>10235465
>does that mean I'm Socrates?
No, but you could use some hemlock anyways.

[Anonymous No.10235502]

>>10235472
Then I'll be Keats

[Anonymous No.10235510]

>>10235459
>whomst

[Anonymous No.10235512]

>>10235437
>my turn to do 4chan bullying? what a dream!

he specifically states an idea, ex. that post modernists do not believe in the individual then elaborates on what he means.

you don't want to discuss the specifics of what he is talking about, you want to talk about what you are talking about.

if there was a place anywhere in post modern theory that valued the individual, it would be a doddle to post that reply and INVALIDATE peterson's arguments.

isntead you want to control what is talked about.

go fuck yourself.

i've seen that video you've linked before. i've gotta say that is so sad you linked that video.

so much of that video is blatantly arguable (to put it politely) and just made up otherwise.

seeing as you think that video is a valid counter-argument i see it's worth my time to make a video that dismantles it.

can you make a random username so i can quote you in my future video?

too much of that video is focused on reframing what JBP says to fit a pro-postmodern narrative than it is focused on refuting his actual points.

1. link between SJW/politics and derrida's writing is arguable. they share some core ideas, there is an academic link via quoted papers. that's a mundane detail, the point is to debate the ideas.

2. exactly how much power is the highest value. again this is a mundane detail when jbp is arguing that good is the highest value. they are two separate frames, to distinguish between focault and derrida on how much they value power is a waste of time.

3. CR and JBP's heirarchies are not clearly at odds. he bases competence to a large degree on biologically determined intelligence and contientiousness, so CR doesn't really apply.

4. MF requires a totalitarian regime to work.....

5. it's easy to see JBP as a postmodernist if you believe controlling the narrative is more important than discussing ideas, ect.

it's basic reframing that has pretty shit arguments and doesn't address JBP for what he is.

you've missed the mark, same as your youtube vid.

[Anonymous No.10235513]

I respect him, but he's not an innovative thinker and does not reach the intellectual and spiritual heights of the men he took inspiration from, like Nietzsche, Jung, Eliada or Dosto the Yevsky

That being said, there is substance to what he says and he is undoubtedly better than most internet personalities

[Anonymous No.10235516]

>>10235457
>"where do we fall on JBP" means what i what it to mean.

>Post-modernism isn't some common theoretico-ideological basis that allows for multiple implementations. It's merely a term to denote more or less everything that came after modernism.

garbage comment. it has a series of ideas that it shares in common with modern political movements. those are implementations of the theory. this isn't complicated.

[Anonymous No.10235520]

>>10235459
top point, glad it's backed and means something and isn't just 4chan noise

[Anonymous No.10235527]

>>10235512
>he attributes this particular idea he has to X
>but anon, that idea isn't actually innate to X at all and he put no evidence forward that it is
>WHAT ARE YOU RETARDED JUST ACCEPT HE'S RIGHT AND DISCUSS THE IDEA ITSELF
holy fuck, stop being this retarded, crabbit, this is embarassing.

[Anonymous No.10235529]

This thread is what happens when you let brainlets watch too much YouTube and not enough books.

The absolute state of /lit/

[Anonymous No.10235535]

>>10235527
never said accept he's right.

i said i want to debate this.

you're saying he's wrong cause he's using the wrong label.

>happy to argue for garbage ideas as long as they have the right name.

nice to see you got no refutation for my actual points. classic 4chan.

[Anonymous No.10235541]

>>10235529
what a cool strawman bro.
guess i better turn my books back in.

[Anonymous No.10235552]

>>10235535
Yes, this is the discussion of him lumping together and misattributing the ideas he talks about. It was made clear and expunged upon in 200 posts. Nobody argued that this misattribution leads to him being wrong in critique of individual phenomena, you hopeless contrarian faggot.

[Anonymous No.10235559]

>>10235459
>tfw Peterson & Sam Harris are literally modern sophists
>tfw Bloom & Zizek are the modern Socrates and Plato

[Anonymous No.10235560]

>>10235516
>sharing some aspects
>being in equivalence relationship
Is this larping or are there generally people as stupid as you seem to be?

[Anonymous No.10235561]

>>10235552
>Nobody argued that this misattribution leads to him being wrong in critique of individual phenomena, you hopeless contrarian faggot.

again with the caring about what other people think.

i rebutted the points in your garbage video. have you got anything else except a labelling argument?

the video you linked itself admits jbp is talking about post modernism by trying to refute exactly how much power is a central idea of derrida, foucault, ect.

it's retarded to argue otherwise, i mean seriously. come on man.

[Anonymous No.10235565]

>>10235560
>making an equivalence statement where there isn't one
>can't use words in except their most literal sense.

a rusted shell of a car with no engine can still be called a car.

3-4 ideas of a big theory can still be called postmodernism.

only argument is semantics. happy to support shitty ideas as long as they're correctly labelled.

[Anonymous No.10235573]

>>10235561
I wasn't the one who linked the video.
>again with the caring about what other people think.
This wasn't what I said at all. This feels like talking to a cretin.

[Anonymous No.10235584]

>>10235552
>Nobody argued that this misattribution leads to him being wrong in critique of individual phenomena, you hopeless contrarian faggot.

yeah they did.

> boogieman for some imagined decline without ever providing a satisfactory definition for that movement is such an intellectual. The man can't even coherently define postmodernism, let alone critique it.

[Anonymous No.10235590]

>>10235565
>3-4 ideas of a big theory can still be called postmodernism
They can't. Unless of course you're a retard that uses "commie" and "fascist" as synonyms for left and right.
>only argument is semantics.
Dear God. Semantics is the whole point of the discussion we had before you barged in, imbecile.
>happy to support
There's like 10 posters including me explicitly stating their disdain for both postmodernism and Peterson's profound misunderstanding of it. You seem to be unable to comprehend the difference between criticism of opinions and criticism of methodology. Calm your cultist tits.

[Anonymous No.10235635]

>>10235590
>They can't. Unless of course you're a retard that uses "commie" and "fascist" as synonyms for left and right.

They can, as post modernism stands for them. Many cars have the same engine, but they are still separate cars. Many theories have the same ideas and can discuss those ideas in those frames. If they are valuable ideas, they are defendable.

> including me
who the fuck are you? anon #58912357?

>Dear God. Semantics is the whole point of the discussion we had before you barged in, imbecile.

retardedly so. in what sense is it worth debating exactly how much power is postmodern than it is specifically elucidating that via debate. there is no need to discuss the frame once it is used to provide support for the conversation.

this limp wristed boundary setting is an easy out for those that don't want to discuss anything of value

[Anonymous No.10235731]

>>10235635
>clumsy faulty analogies
Spare me your reddit wisdom.
>who the fuck are you
Person you're talking to, retard.
>there is no need to discuss the frame once it is used to provide support for the conversation.
Of course there is a need when a retard tries to analyze extraneous concepts in an alien frame that he doesn't even properly comprehend and derives strong conclusions from this faulty misapplications.
>his limp wristed boundary setting
It's called defining axiomatic space and context, my mentally deficient friend.
>discuss anything of value
This is a discussion of value - it directly questions Petersons faulty premises and therefore the intrinsic consistency of his whole view. Sorry it doesn't live up to your expectation of a YT-comment fight whether numales or feminists are worse. Now shoo.

[Anonymous No.10235748]

>>10235512
1. The link between Derrida and politics isn't as apparent. Which ideas specifically would you like to point out are common between SJW and Derrida.
2. JBP does a decent job at giving value of "goodness" to maximum efficiency for a person at realising himself, again you have to be clear what you're talking abiut here when you mention power and it' relation to value. Value in reference to it's acceptability? Value in reference to being useful for realising one's individuality? Value for authority and control? Or something else?
3. The abbreviations do not help, does CR mean Class Relations? If it does then JBP's genetic criterion for who earns how much and which strata of the society they belong to isn't the point that should be debated, it's the power structures underneath the master/slave framework and subsequent exploitation these heirarchies produce that need to be addressed, again if the system doesn't allow individuals to realisie their individuality then should that system be exempt from citicism? Answer is no for both authoritairan as well as capitalism in its current form.
4. Again, what does MF mean here?
5. JBP being a post modernist was the latter point of the video as in, JBP can refine his ideas and have more substance if he chooses to adopt some of post modernist ideas rather than ardently antagonising the entire movement.

Here's JBP saying he doesn't mind Foucault, Pulling off an misinterpretation of Nietzsche's claim of God being Dead as an descriptive claim and subsequent reproach to revival of god as a moral framework for society where Nietzsche never advocated for such measure, and lastly admitting that he has major problems with Derrida.
https://youtu.be/naWWzn2fxWc

[Anonymous No.10235763]

>>10234946
What doesn't work in practice? What the fuck do you think Marxism is?

[Anonymous No.10235776]

>>10235763
A mental disease.

[Anonymous No.10235895]

He is paulo coelho for boyz.

[Anonymous No.10235969]

>>10235748
I was responding to the 5 points your video laid out, the abbreviations are his. Class Relativism and M foucault.

You can take Class relativism into account and take action based on a class's subjective story, but for the sake of the highest performing society in terms of valuable output in any form, you must promote intelligent and hard working people. Both ideas can live together, but you cannot cut JBP's biological "essentialism" but you can cut CR and still function well.

1. sjw and derrida. sjw's before the election cycle used the multiple interpretation of a text argument frequently to critique arguments. they have since stopped doing that.

they also see society as oppressive men, as jbp makes the link to derrida's phal-logo-centric idea. he describes in your video, i hope i dont have to quote from it.

>revival of god as a moral framework for society where Nietzsche never advocated for such measure

okay i want to be careful here. jbp clearly states neitz was in favour of becoming an uber man that creates his own values, then branches off into jung's ideas that you dont create your own values but rediscover them, then uses that as an implication that the correct values are religious. he later repeats this idea more directly.

not saying i agree with jbp here, but the thread of his sentence needs to be correct, and i'm not sure you're responding to what he said.

he didn't say neitz is pro-religion.

he does say it's not easy to come up with a canonical interpretation of neitz, so he is open to debate there, if you want to claim there is a canonical interpret.

he does say he doesn't mind Foucault, but he does bring up an idea from Fou and provides a solution to it. that would be consistent with disliking pomo.

2. my criticism about power is a criticism of the video's point that he splits hairs between two different frames of pomo (so to speak) as a rebuttal to jbp's point. it doesn't rebut jbp's point about how jbp sees power, it refines the pomo theory needlessly.

5. i mean yeah any body can fit the pomo frame to some degree, it is very broad, but jbp's is not a subset of it by his intent, but an opposition to it.

[Anonymous No.10235981]

>>10235731

You miss the point. All of axiomatic space definition becomes self-evident in debate because of the nature of debate.

To piss away time on the boundaries of the axiomatic space, is to waste time not debating.

Debating is a bigger window for discussion as it includes what you want and a more robust discussion on top.

You waste my time. This conflict averse lit masturbation is the limp wristedness and why you get better discussion on reddit.

[Anonymous No.10236146]

>>10235969
no response in an hour.

tl;dr i win pomo forever and always rip world
4chan non-argument bullying bs can suck a dick

[Anonymous No.10236274]

Anything from him that isn't about psychology is worthless.

[Anonymous No.10236310]

>>10234618
>his take on C-16 was simply objectively wrong
it wasn't

[Anonymous No.10236319]

>>10234618
>his take on C-16 was simply objectively wrong,
https://litigationguy.wordpress.com/2016/12/24/bill-c-16-whats-the-big-deal/

[Anonymous No.10236335]

>>10235895
paulo coelho is paulo coelho for boys

[Anonymous No.10236815]

>>10234387
>positive means good
>any other definitions are the creation of postmodernists
This is why nobody takes your kind seriously.

[Anonymous No.10236991]

>>10236815
he's right though

[Anonymous No.10237112]

>>10235969
Sorry lol went to sleep.
How do you cut out CR in a society? This doesn't address the arguement that capitalism isn't perfect when it comes to allowing people to realise their individuality. I'd like you to clarify further.

1. The deconstruction of speech and language in writing is always present, for instance any diplomat has control over his language for the sake of political dignity and performance. I can't speak for all but to deconstruct a statement is hardly Derridean for me, or for those who have read Derrida, it is to deconstruct the medium itself rather than that which occupies the medium, i.e. words.

The concept of phallo-logo-centrism wasn't an SJW criterion that Derrida coined, it was more of a genealogical observation, that our world has more or less relied on language to serve as a symbolic medium for thoughts to transfer in, although imperfectly, and the phallus, the Magnum Dong so to speak, has been the center for most of western civilization , Male God, Male protagonist, male Father, where as female is given the more antagonistic role. This should hardly be any surprise to anyone or should even be taken as a revolutionary statement as the observation isn't unique to Derrida and has been made by many feminists before him.

Then the chide for Nietzsche being pro-religion isn't a chide at Peterson's onterpretation being so, it is ascribing the claim "God is dead and we have killed him" as a descriptive claim literally. JBP may rely on rediscovery of values, religious values, but the point remains that such values evolve through the role of specifc Men who turn the course of History, think thomas Carlyle, and thus even if religion was a mode for allowing such revolution to occur or more appropriately, reproach to occur, using Nietzsche to justify such is hardly suitable for the arguement.

3. Need to be more clear here. JBP's claim for value and power relies on goodness, but as Pascal said,
"It is right that what is just should be obeyed, it is necessary that what is strongest should be obeyed. Justice without might is helpless; might without justice is tyrannical. Justice without might is gainsaid, because there are always offenders; might without justice is condemned. We must then combine justice and might, and for this end make what is just strong, or what is strong just.

Justice is subject to dispute; might is easily recognised and is not disputed. So we cannot give might to justice, because might has gainsaid justice, and has declared that it is she herself who is just. And thus being unable to make what is just strong, we have made what is strong just."
Foucault and Derrida both expounded on this itself more or less in relation to power and ""good"". I'd like you to be clear on what your stance on this is.

5. I can see where you're coming from but it doesn't matter, he'll be better when adopting a wider range of influences which will edify his arguments, relative to where he antagonises Pomo instead.

[Anonymous No.10237147]

>>10235969
Also, Michel Foucault's philosophy doesn't need an authoritarian regime. Power relations are inherent to mankind, even in knowledge and epistemology, truth , more often than not, has more "power" to ascertain itself in relation to the observer for a far more longer period than false notions on the nature of "reality". If you had read Foucault, you'd be familiar with the "Power, Knowledge" duality. Gain knowledge and you have the power to manipulate actions and causes to gain your desired result, Power in other words, gain Power and you have the authority to dictate what should be the norms of a culture or subculture, (again Thomas Carlyle), it applies to a wide variety of processes and paradigms, but I hope you get the idea if you haven't read Foucault.

It doesn't necessitate an authoritarian regime but expounds on what authority itself means, be it in the sphere of society, or the sphere of mind, you can't escape power unless all realise their individuality, (having sorted themselves out) and subsequently, having realised freedom for themselves and see others just as equally free, slave master dialectic.

A relevant exampe would be how JBP's position on Postmodernism isn't accurate but with the intentions of not allowing authoritarian marxists to take over, he chides it in a broad brush stroke, and his viewers who are inexperienced with the scope of viability and theory of Pomo, swallow it up whole as a follower unreluctantly follows a preacher, so to speak. Even if his arguements are fallacious, since people recognise his authority on the subject, they allow an entire trend in thought to go down the drain merely because someone they recognise to have authority over what they say intellectually has been true more or less and has had a deep emotional impact on them.

I'd recommend Foucault's Birth of a Clinic , Archaelogy of Knowledge, The order of things and Madness and Civilizations, if you're wanting to address specific instances of power relations underlying our society. It will at the very least give some perspective.